Earl A. Adams, Jr. v. Chevron USA, Inc.

Opinion

EARL A. ADAMS, JR., ET AL. * NO. 2019-CA-0210

VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL CHEVRON USA, INC., ET AL. * FOURTH CIRCUIT

*

STATE OF LOUISIANA *******

CONSOLIDATED WITH: CONSOLIDATED WITH:

EARL ADAMS, ET AL NO. 2019-C-0198

VERSUS

CHEVRON USA, INC., ET AL

CONSOLIDATED WITH: CONSOLIDATED WITH:

EARL ADAMS, ET AL NO. 2019-C-0199

VERSUS

CHEVRON USA, INC., ET AL

CONSOLIDATED WITH: CONSOLIDATED WITH:

EARL A. ADAMS, JR., ET AL NO. 2019-C-0708

VERSUS

CHEVRON, U.S.A., ET AL

CONSOLIDATED WITH: CONSOLIDATED WITH:

EARL A. ADAMS, JR., ET AL. NO. 2020-CA-0069

VERSUS

CHEVRON USA, INC.

CONSOLIDATED WITH: CONSOLIDATED WITH:

ELDA LONG, ALTHEA SMART, NO. 2020-CA-0070 EARL HYNES, EDWARD WILLIAMS, KENNETH MOUILLE, MALCOLM HARRIS, JR., AND MERLE MCINTYRE

VERSUS

JOSEPH GREFER AND THE ESTATE OF CAMILLE GREFER

APPEAL FROM CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH NO. 2002-19308, DIVISION “D” Honorable Nakisha Ervin-Knott, Judge ****** JAMES F. MCKAY III CHIEF JUDGE ****** (Court composed of Chief Judge James F. McKay, III, Judge Terri F. Love, Judge Roland L. Belsome)

ON APPLICATION FOR REHEARING

ROBERT G. HARVEY, SR. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT G. HARVEY, SR., APLC 600 North Carrollton Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70119 -and- DARLEEN MARIE JACOBS THE LAW OFFICES OF DARLENE M JACOBS 823 St. Louis Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 -and- ALAN DEAN WEINBERGER HANGARTNER RYDBERG & TERRELL, LLC Hancock Whitney Center, Suite 310 New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

PETER N. FREIBERG KEVIN E. HUDDELL LINDSAY E. REEVES CHRISTOPHER W. SWANSON JONES, SWANSON, HUDDELL & GARRISON, L.L.C. 601 Poydras Street, Suite 2655 New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE

REHEARING GRANTED FOR CLARIFICATION

MARCH 31, 2021

3

JFM TFL RLB

On February 24, 2021, this Court issued an opinion wherein the issue was

“whether the trial court erred in preventing the plaintiffs from offering evidence of

the intent of the actual settling parties regarding the scope of the settlement and in

dismissing the plaintiffs’ case.” Adams v. Chevron USA, Inc. 19-0210, p. 2

(La.App. 4 Cir. 2/24/21), ___ So.3d ___ , ___ , 2021 WL 717778, *1. In so

determining, we found the following:

In the instant case, it is undisputed that the landowner defendants are not parties to any settlement agreement with the plaintiffs. It is also undisputed that the landowner defendants did not contribute to any settlement agreement with the plaintiffs. As the landowner defendants are never mentioned in the four corners of any of the settlement agreements, the only way they could have been dismissed is by reference to something outside the agreements themselves.

Under these circumstances, the trial court should have considered the evidence of the intent of the actual parties to the settlement concerning whether the landowner defendants would or would not be released. To not do so interdicted the fact-finding process. Therefore, the district court erred as a matter of law in refusing to allow the plaintiffs an opportunity to offer evidence of the intent of the settling parties, i.e., a contradictory hearing where the parties could have called witnesses and introduced other extrinsic evidence to establish the true intent of the parties to the settlement.

For the above and foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and this case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

4

Id., 19-0210, pp. 3-4, ___ So.3d at ___ , 2021 WL 717778, *2.

Following the issuance of our opinion, both the appellants and the appellees

filed applications for rehearing seeking clarification as to whether this Court’s

opinion applied to both of the trial court judgments regarding the granting of the

Motions to Enforce Settlement Agreement rendered on September 11, 2018, and

October 11, 2019.

Both applications for rehearing are granted for clarification purposes only.

This court’s February 24, 2021 opinion applied to both the September 11, 2018,

and the October 11, 2019 trial court judgments. This Court’s original judgment

remains unchanged.

REHEARING GRANTED FOR CLARIFICATION